Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ...the Court has no jurisdiction to order them to publish such rates in their rate-books. The North-Western company do not contend that they may refuse, and in fact do not refuse, to receive and forward traffic of the applicants when tendered by them at Manchester station, except upon payment of charges for cartage at Manchester." The facts proved, and the arguments of counsel, are sufficiently stated in the judgments. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Cyril Dodd, Q.C., and Waghorn, appeared for the applicants. Cripps, Q.C., and Ernest Moon, appeared for the London and North-Western railway company. Cripps, Q.C., Asquith, Q.C., and Harold Russell appeared for the Great Western railway company. C. A. Russell, Q.C., and Ernest llloon appeared for the Lancashire and Yorkshire railway company. Cripps, Q.C., Asquith, Q.C., and Noble appeared for the Midland railway company. Littler, Q.C., and Ernest Moon appeared for the North Staffordshire railway company. Ernest Moon appeared for the Cheshire lines committee. C. A. Russell, Q.C., and Ernest Moon appeared for the Great Central railway company. WRIGHT, J.: The principal complaint of the applicants in this case is of increases made in 1893 by the railway companies in their rates on goods traffic in Classes I. and II. In that year there was an advance of a great number of goods rates by railway companies to the extent of between 3 and 5 per cent., and under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1894 we have to decide whether that advance was reasonable. The question has been fought on grounds which are not peculiar to the particular traflic of the applicants, but affect the whole goods and mineral traffic of all the railways in the United Kingdom, and future as 1899, 1900 well as past increases of rates....show more